The Examiner is a right-leaning newspaper with an agenda. Not saying you can't agree with it -- just be aware of the messenger.

Anonymous wrote:I found two places that seem to have the details of MCPS GT identification:
http://www.examiner.com/gifted-education-in-washington-dc/details-of-the-secret-montgomery-county-gifted-and-talented-identification-process-part-i
and
http://www.examiner.com/gifted-education-in-washington-dc/how-to-improve-gifted-education-think-differently-part-ii

Are these MCPS approved or someone's opinion. The information needs to come from MCPS' site, don't you think?

Anonymous wrote: to the last question - I haven' theard of any other group whose main focus is acceleration besides GTA. Not sure why you would want to reinvent the wheel when such a group already exists.

I was asking a question to understand where the opposition to GTA stems from, not really suggesting to reinvent the wheel. If there is no alternative and we want to beat up GTA, what we are left with is nothing.

I found two places that seem to have the details of MCPS GT identification:
http://www.examiner.com/gifted-education-in-washington-dc/details-of-the-secret-montgomery-county-gifted-and-talented-identification-process-part-i
and
http://www.examiner.com/gifted-education-in-washington-dc/how-to-improve-gifted-education-think-differently-part-ii

"What do you mean by "gifted children?" You say GTA is using the MCPS definition. So, what is the MCPS definition? Where can I find the cutoff scores??? "

I wonder if this PP is just trying to see how many times she can get the other poster to very patiently tell her yet again that GTA uses the MCPS definition of GT kids and that MCPS keeps this information very secretive!

to the last question - I haven' theard of any other group whose main focus is acceleration besides GTA. Not sure why you would want to reinvent the wheel when such a group already exists.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, maybe somebody else knows. But you could always attend the meetings and speak (at meetings where speaking is allowed) and identify yourself as not belonging to any group.

Oh, I should have been clearer, my question was not for the upcoming meeting. I am sure no one will identify themselves as an organization, since we would be there representing our kids' need. I just want to learn if there is an alternate organization (not individuals) that is currently focused on advocating for acceleration, honors classes, ability grouping etc.

I don't know, maybe somebody else knows. But you could always attend the meetings and speak (at meetings where speaking is allowed) and identify yourself as not belonging to any group.

What is an alternative organization to GTA for advocating for academically advanced students in MCPS?

Anonymous wrote:I think the original poster asked a valid question. When you say "Develop, implement and monitor higher level curricula and benchmarks matched to the needs and abilities of gifted children" what does that mean? What do you mean by "gifted children?" You say GTA is using the MCPS definition. So, what is the MCPS definition? Where can I find the cutoff scores???

The original poster asked some good question with wrong tone to start with. I do not represent GTA. However I am very committed to accelerated education within the MCPS framework. So, let me try to answer. Since the sentence you are quoting is a follow on sentence to a paragraph, the "gifted children" there means the identified "gifted and talented" students by MCPS.

MCPS does not have a definition as far as I know, except for a policy of identification of "GT" students. I do not think MCPS has fixed cutoff scores. MCPS does not have cutoff scores for magnet testing either. MCPS tries to remain vague on purpose. There are many issues with the way MCPS operates. Hence GTA is not the enemy here. At least the group is trying to ensure accelerated education be available at local school. If we want more from MCPS, we have to gather to ask these questions from AEI and Dr. Starr. It is important to ask these questions as a group and in public so that MCPS is accountable to respond.

The bylaws question is good and the minutes question is good. And the answer is ....?? I know someone asked the question on the GTA listserv and no answer. Why?
When does MCPS give out a label?

Yes the bylaws question and minutes questions are good. If I happen to find the answer I will relay back. MCPS gives out the label in 2nd grade. That is why I believe GTA’s petition is asking “expand the use of formal instructional recommendations to include future grades”.

What happened when the GTA met with Starr?? Was he receptive to GT?? Maybe you can share that info and tell me where to get the bylaws and minutes. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:The "challenge every child" approach of GTA is pretty straightforward:

Continue the Grade 2 identification of gifted and talented students, ?and expand the use of formal instructional recommendations to include future grades

Restore flexible homogeneous grouping of students with peers of similar ability and motivation in all local schools;

Develop, implement and monitor higher level curricula and benchmarks matched to the needs and abilities of gifted children.

I think the original poster asked a valid question. When you say "Develop, implement and monitor higher level curricula and benchmarks matched to the needs and abilities of gifted children" what does that mean? What do you mean by "gifted children?" You say GTA is using the MCPS definition. So, what is the MCPS definition? Where can I find the cutoff scores???

The bylaws question is good and the minutes question is good. And the answer is ....?? I know someone asked the question on the GTA listserv and no answer. Why?

When does MCPS give out a label?

The "challenge every child" approach of GTA is pretty straightforward:

Continue the Grade 2 identification of gifted and talented students, ?and expand the use of formal instructional recommendations to include future grades

Restore flexible homogeneous grouping of students with peers of similar ability and motivation in all local schools;

Develop, implement and monitor higher level curricula and benchmarks matched to the needs and abilities of gifted children.

Anonymous wrote:
I am not sure I understand what the label stuff is about. Why do we need to label each level of learners? I thought the law required identifying GT only? What is the GTA position about what GT means?

If MCPS ever provides many levels of identification for academic readiness to cater specific services for each level instead of services for each age group, it may be ideal. I do not believe it will happen in my life time and I am fairly young However at this point there MCPS identifies children as “gifted and talented” in grade 2. I believe GTA uses that identification to advocate for services. However, they do not advocate only for average learners as some people will like everyone to believe. They are advocating for all advanced learners whether they are at 60th%tile, or 90th%tile. Some people might want GTA to fight to provide “GT” its commonly accepted meaning instead of talking in MCPS’s lingo of GT kids . But GTA probably has limited resources and would like to focus on one advocacy at a time, the current advocacy is to get accelerated services back to neighborhood schools.

I just don't want to get into name calling ... so please excuse me if I don't go there. What does the GTA consider to be GT? Above 50th percentile? 70th? 90th? I think the question the poster asked about bylaws is also good. Do you know where I can find them? Just trying to know more about an organization you know a lot about.

If you did not engage in name calling, you do not have to worry about it. When people run out of actual argument, they resort to name-calling. It reminds me of my discussion the other day with DC about the concept of “ad hominem”.
Like I mentioned before GTA uses the same meaning for GT as MCPS. MCPS, BTW, does not say what GT standard is whether it is 50th %tile or 90th %tile, we would never know. Yes, the bylaw question is good. I would love to learn about GTA a lot more, but at this time I am more concerned about what they support case to case basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi all. If SG from the GT forum is on here, thanks for your posts. I just saw the discussion - I read it all the way through for once! - and saw your posts. You're right, I'm never post there because I'm afraid I'll be deliberately misunderstood (JS' response to your post) or have my head ripped off for some other reason, so that in the end any point I try to make would be lost in more sturm und drang.

Plus the description of the label issues here was very useful (yours?) because who has the time or patience to read through 2 months of bickering to figure out what are the key issues and who's advocating for what and why....

No, I'm not an MCPS plant like s/o said over there. Geez! I'll say it loud and clear: I think they do a cr@ppy job for the 90th pctile kids. Happy, JS?

I am the PP who has been posting in DCUM about label issues. I am not SG, but I know who she is. I do not post to the other forum since there are too many people with too many different agenda. So, you do not know me. Unfortunately the vocal people give a bad reputation to the forum and the advocacy. Does not mean evryone should stop advocating for advanced learners. We need to organize beyond personal differences.

EB? Hon, we need to organize but not with an organization that ain't done nothin' yet. Many voices on their own expressing the truth are far more powerful than having the GTA expressing our views for us. Where does the GTA stand about the label? Do you think it is right to call anyone who can read above the MCPS grade level gifted? You folks say that MCPS standards are low. Then if you are just above-MCPS grade it means you are probably on level, right?

Where can I find the stuff about your meetings so that I can see what you've done? What do you do with the $15 membership fee? What are the GTA bylaws ... you know like my child's PTA has? Let us hear more about the GTA before you try to pull us in.

Who is EB? I think I can guess, but I am not her either. Let me clarify again. I am not active in the forum, and I am not part of GTA. You will not be able to guess my identity.

Many voices on their own cannot create a ripple in the cesspool called MCPS. BTW, your voice in this post is condescending and it does not earn you any point in the debate.

GTA did not create the label, MCPS did. All GTA is asking MCPS is to provide services for kids identified as “gifted”. I do not think their view on this would have been any different if MCPS identified these kids as “foo bar” except maybe they would be called “Foo Bar Association” ? If you want to organize something, which will label each level of learners specifically, go for it. But I agree with the GTA’s view (I am assuming this from what I have seen so far) that until that happens, “gifted” is the only label available for all kids above grade level. I will not submit myself to the propaganda that someone started to divide the parents of the advanced level learners so that they keep fighting about specificity of the label, while the other side abolishes all traces of accelerated education in MCPS.

I do not care so much about past performance of GTA right now, as much as their positions in the current issues. I agree with their position on “Challenge Every Child”. If in future I do not agree with something they support I will voice my opinion too.

I am not sure I understand what the label stuff is about. Why do we need to label each level of learners? I thought the law required identifying GT only? What is the GTA position about what GT means?

I just don't want to get into name calling ... so please excuse me if I don't go there. What does the GTA consider to be GT? Above 50th percentile? 70th? 90th? I think the question the poster asked about bylaws is also good. Do you know where I can find them? Just trying to know more about an organization you know a lot about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi all. If SG from the GT forum is on here, thanks for your posts. I just saw the discussion - I read it all the way through for once! - and saw your posts. You're right, I'm never post there because I'm afraid I'll be deliberately misunderstood (JS' response to your post) or have my head ripped off for some other reason, so that in the end any point I try to make would be lost in more sturm und drang.

Plus the description of the label issues here was very useful (yours?) because who has the time or patience to read through 2 months of bickering to figure out what are the key issues and who's advocating for what and why....

No, I'm not an MCPS plant like s/o said over there. Geez! I'll say it loud and clear: I think they do a cr@ppy job for the 90th pctile kids. Happy, JS?

I am the PP who has been posting in DCUM about label issues. I am not SG, but I know who she is. I do not post to the other forum since there are too many people with too many different agenda. So, you do not know me. Unfortunately the vocal people give a bad reputation to the forum and the advocacy. Does not mean evryone should stop advocating for advanced learners. We need to organize beyond personal differences.

EB? Hon, we need to organize but not with an organization that ain't done nothin' yet. Many voices on their own expressing the truth are far more powerful than having the GTA expressing our views for us. Where does the GTA stand about the label? Do you think it is right to call anyone who can read above the MCPS grade level gifted? You folks say that MCPS standards are low. Then if you are just above-MCPS grade it means you are probably on level, right?

Where can I find the stuff about your meetings so that I can see what you've done? What do you do with the $15 membership fee? What are the GTA bylaws ... you know like my child's PTA has? Let us hear more about the GTA before you try to pull us in.

Who is EB? I think I can guess, but I am not her either. Let me clarify again. I am not active in the forum, and I am not part of GTA. You will not be able to guess my identity.

Many voices on their own cannot create a ripple in the cesspool called MCPS. BTW, your voice in this post is condescending and it does not earn you any point in the debate.

GTA did not create the label, MCPS did. All GTA is asking MCPS is to provide services for kids identified as “gifted”. I do not think their view on this would have been any different if MCPS identified these kids as “foo bar” except maybe they would be called “Foo Bar Association” ? If you want to organize something, which will label each level of learners specifically, go for it. But I agree with the GTA’s view (I am assuming this from what I have seen so far) that until that happens, “gifted” is the only label available for all kids above grade level. I will not submit myself to the propaganda that someone started to divide the parents of the advanced level learners so that they keep fighting about specificity of the label, while the other side abolishes all traces of accelerated education in MCPS.

I do not care so much about past performance of GTA right now, as much as their positions in the current issues. I agree with their position on “Challenge Every Child”. If in future I do not agree with something they support I will voice my opinion too.